Graham v. Starks et al
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Motion to dismiss 10 GRANTED; petition DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; all pending motions DISMISSED as moot. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 12/30/14. (cr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
TERRANCE GRAHAM
PETITIONER
V.
NO. 4:14-CV-115-DMB-SAA
WARDEN ORA STARKS AND
SHERIFF KELVIN WILLIAMS, SR.
RESPONDENTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner, Terrance Graham, is proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A pretrial detainee currently confined at the Bolivar County
Correctional Facility in Cleveland, Mississippi, Petitioner alleges that he has been in custody
since September 28, 2011, and that he has yet to appear before a judge. Respondents have filed
a motion to dismiss this action, asserting that Petitioner seeks relief not available in habeas
corpus, and that he has failed to exhaust his state court remedies. Petitioner has failed to file a
reply to Respondents’ motion, and the time to file a reply has expired. After reviewing the
parties’ submissions and the applicable law, the Court finds that it should grant Respondents’
motion and dismiss this cause.
Factual and Procedural Background
On September 20, 2011, Petitioner was indicted for one count of attempted rape in the
Circuit Court of Bolivar County, Mississippi, in Circuit Court Case No. 2011-089-CR2. Doc.
[10-1]. Respondents maintain that, according to the Bolivar County District Attorney’s Office,
Petitioner has had a competency hearing and has been found competent to stand trial. Mot. [10]
at 2. Respondents assert that Petitioner’s trial, which was originally scheduled for May 2014,
was moved for another case and was rescheduled for November 2014. Id.
According to Respondents, a guilty plea hearing began in Petitioner’s case on October
28, 2014, but the proceedings were cancelled after Petitioner changed his mind and did not enter
a guilty plea. Id. Respondents contend that the District Attorney’s Office asserts that it started
the term with a capital murder case that was scheduled primary to Petitioner’s case on November
3, 2014, and that the capital murder case only concluded on November 12, 2014. Doc. [10-3].
Respondents assert that they have been advised by Assistant District Attorney Leslie Flint that
cases will not be tried in the Second Judicial District of Bolivar County until the May-June term
of 2015.
Petitioner filed the instant action on or about July 2, 2014, asking the Court “to resolve
this case and proceed as fast as possible because I feel like my time have [sic] been served. I
know I didn’t do what they say I did.” Pet. [1] at 1.
Discussion
Because he has not yet been convicted, Petitioner is a pretrial detainee who has the right
to seek federal habeas relief, but that relief “does not lie, absent ‘special circumstances,’ to
adjudicate the merits of an affirmative defense to a state criminal charge prior to a judgment of
conviction by a state court.” Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 489
(1973) (citation omitted). Courts have recognized “an important distinction between a petitioner
who seeks to ‘abort a state proceeding or to disrupt the orderly functioning of state judicial
processes’ by litigating a speedy trial defense to a prosecution prior to trial, and one who seeks
only to enforce the state’s obligation to bring him promptly to trial.” Brown v. Estelle, 530 F.2d
1280, 1283 (5th Cir. 1976) (citation omitted). A pretrial detainee who files a habeas petition in
“an attempt to dismiss an indictment or otherwise prevent a prosecution” is seeking an objective
that is “normally not attainable through federal habeas corpus.” Id.
2
To the extent Petitioner seeks release from state custody, he is seeking relief not
attainable through a habeas action unless he can show that “special circumstances” exist
warranting federal intervention into the criminal charges pending against him in state court. See
Dickerson v. State of La., 816 F.2d 220, 226 (5th Cir. 1987). In Dickerson, the Fifth Circuit
declined to accept the petitioner’s argument that the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was
a per se “special circumstance,” as to do so would eliminate the distinction drawn by the court in
Braden between the disruption of the process versus the enforcement of a speedy trial right. Id.
Here, Petitioner identifies no special circumstances that warrant disruption of the state’s judicial
process, and, insofar as Petitioner seeks release from custody, the petition should be dismissed.
Alternatively, and to the extent Petitioner seeks only to enforce his speedy trial rights, the
Court finds that there is no evidence that Petitioner has filed a motion for a speedy trial in the
Bolivar County Circuit Court. See Doc. [10-2]. Documents received from the Bolivar County
Circuit Court have been submitted to this Court, and the docket of Petitioner’s case in state court
shows that as of November 2014, no speedy trial motions have been filed. Id. The online docket
of the Mississippi Supreme Court does not show any filings from Petitioner in that court.1 By
failing to first seek relief in state court, Petitioner has deprived the state of a fair opportunity to
address his claims.
See, e.g., Braden, 410 U.S. at 489-90; Dickerson, 816 F.2d at 225.
Therefore, the instant petition may also be properly dismissed due to Petitioner’s failure to
exhaust his state court remedies prior to seeking federal habeas relief.
1
See http://courts.ms.gov/appellate_courts/generaldocket.html (search by last name and first name)
(last accessed December 17, 2014).
3
Additionally, the Court notes that, to the extent Petitioner seeks money damages through
a civil suit against Respondents for wrongful imprisonment, such claims must be brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). As such, this
claim will be dismissed for failure to state a federal habeas corpus claim.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein, the Court finds that Respondents’ motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim upon which habeas relief can be granted [10] is GRANTED and the
instant petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All
pending motions are DISMISSED as moot. A separate final judgment will enter today.
SO ORDERED, this the 30th day of December, 2014.
/s/Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?